I agree it should be correct but it has little to do with the performance/quality of a product. It's the yoyo behind the desk typing these reports out.
Emailed Mobil 1 re: 5w-20 EP Pour Point disparity.
- Thread starter Art_Vandelay
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil has become sloppy over the years, They are just riding on their reputation, that's about it.
I would have to agree. They still have a few oil flavors I would use if I needed something for that specific application but I have jumped ship on them. Used to be a huge fan.
Mobil has become sloppy over the years, They are just riding on their reputation, that's about it.
I would have to agree. They still have a few oil flavors I would use if I needed something for that specific application but I have jumped ship on them. Used to be a huge fan.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
. . .
A 9 degree higher pour point is an incredibly significant difference. Not to mention that anything lower than -50C suggests high PAO base oil content.
Is this a typographical error or a radical shift in product formulation?
. . .
Well . . . I suppose it is important from a certain point of view. And I do agree that pour points are likely a strong indicator of brew components. On the other hand, from a practical perspective, for most US users, in all but the coldest places, I really don't think pour point means much. Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
. . .
A 9 degree higher pour point is an incredibly significant difference. Not to mention that anything lower than -50C suggests high PAO base oil content.
Is this a typographical error or a radical shift in product formulation?
. . .
Well . . . I suppose it is important from a certain point of view. And I do agree that pour points are likely a strong indicator of brew components. On the other hand, from a practical perspective, for most US users, in all but the coldest places, I really don't think pour point means much. Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
If pour point doesnt matter then you dont want a 6 dollar PAO base synthetic oil. I dont want a 6 dollar conventional oil - the sheep in wolf's clothing - and thats what most oil cos are selling these days. If you want a syn for high temp operation you want a redline or Silkolene "type" product not this overpriced dino juice. Another rant; this "it's the performance that matters" reasoning is baloney and a suspect Big Oil Co pundit spin. Just call the stuff Ultra Premium or Super Clean - but DO NOT CALL IT SYNTHETIC!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
A lot of firewood and a lot of coffee. Plus a possible population explosion.
Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
A lot of firewood and a lot of coffee. Plus a possible population explosion.
Data Sheets and MSDSs are intended for different purposes and are usually written by different departments. It is not uncommon for the HSE folks who write the MSDSs to use the most conservative data, such as the internal production specifications, while the marketing folks usually use average (typical) data, rounded in the product's favor.
When I wrote Data Sheets, I calculated the average results from actual production data and rounded to the nearest appropriate increment. For example, in the case of pour points the ASTM D 97 procedure states "Pour points are expressed in integers that are positive or negative multiples of 3°C". Therefore, if the average of pour point data for a given product was say -52.3°C, it would not be inappropriate to report the next lowest multiple of 3°C or -54°C (at least not inappropriate for a marketer
).
When Our HSE people wrote the MSDSs they typically used internal production specification data to be safe, and this was always significantly more conservative than the average data.
When I wrote internal production specifications, I set these around the range of the production data rather than the average. So, using the same example above, the range of pour points from production batches that gave the average of -52.3°C might have been -45°C to -57°C, and in such a case I might have used -45°C for the production specifications. This figure would then be picked up by the HSE folks and used on the MSDS. Hence the difference between the Data Sheet value of -54°C and the MSDS value of -45°C in this example would be 9°C.
This may seem like a wide range, but keep in mind that the reproducibility of the ASTM D 97 procedure is +- 3°C. Add to this the variability of the actual batches, let's say another +- 3°C, and the range of data could be +- 6°C. So, if a batch of product had an actual pour point of say -51°C, a technician can obtain a valid -54°C on his analysis. If the next batch has an actual pour point of -45°C, another technician can obtain a valid -42°C on his analysis. This gives a range of +- 12°C. In reality, lab and batch data tends to be a bit more consistent than this, but these ranges are possible.
These kind of discrepancies in testing and reporting also occur for flash points, where the ASTM D 92 procedure lists a reproducibility of +-16 °F! This is why I often caution against trying to predict oil composition or compare products using such highly variable data.
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
Tom NJ
When I wrote Data Sheets, I calculated the average results from actual production data and rounded to the nearest appropriate increment. For example, in the case of pour points the ASTM D 97 procedure states "Pour points are expressed in integers that are positive or negative multiples of 3°C". Therefore, if the average of pour point data for a given product was say -52.3°C, it would not be inappropriate to report the next lowest multiple of 3°C or -54°C (at least not inappropriate for a marketer
When Our HSE people wrote the MSDSs they typically used internal production specification data to be safe, and this was always significantly more conservative than the average data.
When I wrote internal production specifications, I set these around the range of the production data rather than the average. So, using the same example above, the range of pour points from production batches that gave the average of -52.3°C might have been -45°C to -57°C, and in such a case I might have used -45°C for the production specifications. This figure would then be picked up by the HSE folks and used on the MSDS. Hence the difference between the Data Sheet value of -54°C and the MSDS value of -45°C in this example would be 9°C.
This may seem like a wide range, but keep in mind that the reproducibility of the ASTM D 97 procedure is +- 3°C. Add to this the variability of the actual batches, let's say another +- 3°C, and the range of data could be +- 6°C. So, if a batch of product had an actual pour point of say -51°C, a technician can obtain a valid -54°C on his analysis. If the next batch has an actual pour point of -45°C, another technician can obtain a valid -42°C on his analysis. This gives a range of +- 12°C. In reality, lab and batch data tends to be a bit more consistent than this, but these ranges are possible.
These kind of discrepancies in testing and reporting also occur for flash points, where the ASTM D 92 procedure lists a reproducibility of +-16 °F! This is why I often caution against trying to predict oil composition or compare products using such highly variable data.
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: buster
Fwiw, Mobil 1 5w-20 has a new MSDS as of March 2010. Density is now .86 vs .80. Does that signify a base oil change?
I would guess the 0.80 figure was incorrect and they corrected it. PAOs and Group IIIs run right around 0.85 while ANs are around 0.90 and POEs 0.95+. Additives affect the density as well, but 0.80 just looks wrong to me.
Tom NJ
Fwiw, Mobil 1 5w-20 has a new MSDS as of March 2010. Density is now .86 vs .80. Does that signify a base oil change?
I would guess the 0.80 figure was incorrect and they corrected it. PAOs and Group IIIs run right around 0.85 while ANs are around 0.90 and POEs 0.95+. Additives affect the density as well, but 0.80 just looks wrong to me.
Tom NJ
Tom, it's been .80 for quite some time. If you look at the PDS for Mobil 1 5w-30, it too shows a density of .80. Could these be oils that contain more Grp III?
The EP line, 0w-20 and 0w-30 are all .86. The 0w-20/30 according to the Korean MSDS, are majority PAO.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_5W-20.asp
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.asp
The EP line, 0w-20 and 0w-30 are all .86. The 0w-20/30 according to the Korean MSDS, are majority PAO.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_5W-20.asp
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.asp
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: buster
Fwiw, Mobil 1 5w-20 has a new MSDS as of March 2010. Density is now .86 vs .80. Does that signify a base oil change?
I would guess the 0.80 figure was incorrect and they corrected it. PAOs and Group IIIs run right around 0.85 while ANs are around 0.90 and POEs 0.95+. Additives affect the density as well, but 0.80 just looks wrong to me.
Tom NJ
Tom: Keeping in mind that, while I've done a large amount of "self education" in this field (hey, don't forget about guys like Abe Lincoln), I will defer to your expertise (unless you're waaaaaay out to lunch
). That said, in which direction would the add pack usually take the finished product, w/r/t the density figure?
Originally Posted By: buster
Fwiw, Mobil 1 5w-20 has a new MSDS as of March 2010. Density is now .86 vs .80. Does that signify a base oil change?
I would guess the 0.80 figure was incorrect and they corrected it. PAOs and Group IIIs run right around 0.85 while ANs are around 0.90 and POEs 0.95+. Additives affect the density as well, but 0.80 just looks wrong to me.
Tom NJ
Tom: Keeping in mind that, while I've done a large amount of "self education" in this field (hey, don't forget about guys like Abe Lincoln), I will defer to your expertise (unless you're waaaaaay out to lunch
PAOs and Group IIIs have about the same density (0.82-.085), so changing the ratio of these will not have a significant effect. Metal containing additives are generally heavier, as are ANs and POEs. VI Improvers vary but are generally in the 0.8s or higher.
I don't know the M1 formulations but a density of only 0.80 just seems strange to me. I could be wrong.
Tom NJ
I don't know the M1 formulations but a density of only 0.80 just seems strange to me. I could be wrong.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
I meet with a high level industry insider(Deep Throat) from time to time. He told me that Mobil 1 has an articulation agreement with Absolut Vodka. He notes that the MSDS department gets the Red label which is 100 proof and that the PDS department gets the Blue label which is 80 proof. Now, sometimes people from both of these departments, stumble out to the water cooler in the hallway, and start arguing that the percentage of alcohol in the respective bottles isn't really important...that's when they started putting the Vodka in the Mobil 1 deep freezers for 48 hour testing. Apparently the Red label has a superior pour point to the blue but nobody can read their writing to get the actual figures.
That does tend to prove that the overall performance of the product is what matters, since they're all drunk.
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
I meet with a high level industry insider(Deep Throat) from time to time. He told me that Mobil 1 has an articulation agreement with Absolut Vodka. He notes that the MSDS department gets the Red label which is 100 proof and that the PDS department gets the Blue label which is 80 proof. Now, sometimes people from both of these departments, stumble out to the water cooler in the hallway, and start arguing that the percentage of alcohol in the respective bottles isn't really important...that's when they started putting the Vodka in the Mobil 1 deep freezers for 48 hour testing. Apparently the Red label has a superior pour point to the blue but nobody can read their writing to get the actual figures.
That does tend to prove that the overall performance of the product is what matters, since they're all drunk.
Thank you for your thread, I wish I thought of that.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
On the other hand, from a practical perspective, for most US users, in all but the coldest places, I really don't think pour point means much. Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
I'm in North Dakota, and I've definitely experienced temps lower than the MSDS figure of -42C (-44F). I'm not sure I've seen them lower than the datasheet figure of -54C (-63F).
But to your point about the relevance of pour points, hardly anyone lives here. Our population is 0.6 million for the entire state. So, Mobil 1 could probably lose all its market share here and never notice!
On the other hand, from a practical perspective, for most US users, in all but the coldest places, I really don't think pour point means much. Hey, if pour point becomes a factor here in Florida, I'd hate to think about what would be going on in North Dakota. . .
I'm in North Dakota, and I've definitely experienced temps lower than the MSDS figure of -42C (-44F). I'm not sure I've seen them lower than the datasheet figure of -54C (-63F).
But to your point about the relevance of pour points, hardly anyone lives here. Our population is 0.6 million for the entire state. So, Mobil 1 could probably lose all its market share here and never notice!
Originally Posted By: tig1
Logician,
Do you use a block heater? Just because M1 5-20 has a pour point of -65F, I would think a block heater in your country would be standard equiptment.
Block heaters are common here, but not ubiquitous. I don't currently use one, but I have in the past in some situations/vehicles. But in many situations it's not feasible to use one. For example, many people who live in apartment buildings don't have electricity access at their car. Same thing when people are at work.
It's kind of a Catch-22. The people who are most likely to have electricity available at their car are the same people who are least likely to need it, because they'll also have a garage. For the last couple years I've had an attached garage that usually doesn't dip that far below 0F (-18C) even in mid-winter.
I started using Mobil 1 at age 14 when I first got my driver's license because I needed flow in the extreme cold. I have personally never had a car fail to start for any temperature-related reason (that's a personal sample size of 12 vehicles, mostly stored outside without block heater use). There have been hundreds of times that my friends, co-workers, etc have not been able to start their car due to the cold. Is this because they were using conventional oil and I wasn't? I don't know for sure, but the anecdotal evidence is strong enough for me to continue using a synthetic. More specifically, I do base my oil purchasing decisions partly on pour point data and other characteristics that are relevant to the winter climate here.
Logician,
Do you use a block heater? Just because M1 5-20 has a pour point of -65F, I would think a block heater in your country would be standard equiptment.
Block heaters are common here, but not ubiquitous. I don't currently use one, but I have in the past in some situations/vehicles. But in many situations it's not feasible to use one. For example, many people who live in apartment buildings don't have electricity access at their car. Same thing when people are at work.
It's kind of a Catch-22. The people who are most likely to have electricity available at their car are the same people who are least likely to need it, because they'll also have a garage. For the last couple years I've had an attached garage that usually doesn't dip that far below 0F (-18C) even in mid-winter.
I started using Mobil 1 at age 14 when I first got my driver's license because I needed flow in the extreme cold. I have personally never had a car fail to start for any temperature-related reason (that's a personal sample size of 12 vehicles, mostly stored outside without block heater use). There have been hundreds of times that my friends, co-workers, etc have not been able to start their car due to the cold. Is this because they were using conventional oil and I wasn't? I don't know for sure, but the anecdotal evidence is strong enough for me to continue using a synthetic. More specifically, I do base my oil purchasing decisions partly on pour point data and other characteristics that are relevant to the winter climate here.
I started using M1 in 78 when I lived in Maine. It was 5-20 in those days but the synt oil made my Chevy V-8 crank over much easier than the dino 10-40 that was common in those days. Also I never had any lifter clatter that came with the thicker dino.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
I meet with a high level industry insider(Deep Throat) from time to time. He told me that Mobil 1 has an articulation agreement with Absolut Vodka. He notes that the MSDS department gets the Red label which is 100 proof and that the PDS department gets the Blue label which is 80 proof. Now, sometimes people from both of these departments, stumble out to the water cooler in the hallway, and start arguing that the percentage of alcohol in the respective bottles isn't really important...that's when they started putting the Vodka in the Mobil 1 deep freezers for 48 hour testing. Apparently the Red label has a superior pour point to the blue but nobody can read their writing to get the actual figures.
That does tend to prove that the overall performance of the product is what matters, since they're all drunk.
So, what you're saying is that now, along with our diluted-value E10 gasoline, we're going to get E10 oil too! How hippocritical -- E10 petrochemicals (petroalcochemicals??) are a good thing, but an "E10" driver goes straight to jail and gets a DUI hung over his head?
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I have no idea how ExxonMobil treats their data, but am just pointing out that there could be many reasons for discrepancies between Data Sheets and MSDSs other than formulation changes.
I meet with a high level industry insider(Deep Throat) from time to time. He told me that Mobil 1 has an articulation agreement with Absolut Vodka. He notes that the MSDS department gets the Red label which is 100 proof and that the PDS department gets the Blue label which is 80 proof. Now, sometimes people from both of these departments, stumble out to the water cooler in the hallway, and start arguing that the percentage of alcohol in the respective bottles isn't really important...that's when they started putting the Vodka in the Mobil 1 deep freezers for 48 hour testing. Apparently the Red label has a superior pour point to the blue but nobody can read their writing to get the actual figures.
That does tend to prove that the overall performance of the product is what matters, since they're all drunk.
So, what you're saying is that now, along with our diluted-value E10 gasoline, we're going to get E10 oil too! How hippocritical -- E10 petrochemicals (petroalcochemicals??) are a good thing, but an "E10" driver goes straight to jail and gets a DUI hung over his head?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked